- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Forbes Mag - Obama outperforms Reagan on jobs growth and investing
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:34 am to BobBoucher
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:34 am to BobBoucher
quote:When adjusted for LFPR they are not remotely similar. That's the point. What is it about that fact that you do not understand?
but the trends are similiar none the less.
3
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:37 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
When adjusted for LFPR they are not remotely similar. That's the point. What is it about that fact that you do not understand?
The liberal response to your graph: "The decrease in labor force participation is a good thing. It means people have more time to stay home and write that novel or take sculpture classes instead of slaving away to serve corporate greed."
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:37 am to NC_Tigah
FWIW
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:39 am to Zach
quote:
The decrease in labor force participation is a good thing.
Did you ever think you would live to see a WH spokesman stand before a microphone and make the case that higher unemployment freed the people from job lock and was actually a good thing? And he wouldnt be laughed off the podium and fired 5 mins later?
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 11:40 am
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:51 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Did you ever think you would live to see a WH spokesman stand before a microphone and make the case that higher unemployment freed the people from job lock and was actually a good thing? And he wouldnt be laughed off the podium and fired 5 mins later?
Heck, even Carter's people didn't try to use that spin when the unemployment rate was high. However, the press did use 'maybe the job of President is too complicated for one man'during Carter. And I've heard the press make the same claim during Obama's adm.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 12:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
When adjusted for LFPR they are not remotely similar. That's the point. What is it about that fact that you do not understand?
there are a lot of other factors that play in to in other than just LFPR. This recession was considerably worse on multiple fronts, including net job losses at the end as a result from the recession (double for recent recession compared to 80s).
Then add the cause of the recession, and what could be done to address it which were both different in both cases, and youre going to get different results.
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 9/18/14 at 1:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not only has the >55y/o age group not contributed to the decline in LFPR, it has blunted it. Over the past decade the overall % of >65y/o's who remain active in the workforce has increased nearly 30%. In the meantime, young workers are getting massacred by Obamanomics.
Absolutely no one anywhere besides yourself and some nutty right wing bloggers is making that claim.
I would expect the workforce participation rate among 55+ to increase as the participation rate of the Baby Boomers has always been much much higher than the previous generation. However, when the largest segment of your population decreases in participation from 85% down to 40% due to natural causes, your overall participation rate goes down. It wouldn't matter if they went down from 100% to 60%, the overall number will drop!
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 9/18/14 at 1:11 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Ooooooh. Now I get it. Your uncle story totally proves what's happening in the entire country. Sample of n=1. Seems adequate. Why didn't you say so?
My uncle is about 60 and has been retired from the NYPD at full benefits ($85K per year?) for about 10 years now.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 1:22 pm to BobBoucher
quote:Nope. Look at the slopes. Look at the shapes. This has been a very slow and feckless recovery.
the recovery is happening on a similair trajectory to the Reagan recovery.
quote:Indeed. The fed had far greater tools, treasury had MUCH low borrowing costs, and cash flowing into the fed banking system because of an international flight-to-quality. This should have been an easier recession to recover from.
Lets not lose sight that these two recessions were very different, so we could not expect their recoveries to be the same.
What's missing this time is that no one want to spend long term CAPEX on GDP producing assets. You'd do well to ask why that's the case with essentially free money available...
Posted on 9/18/14 at 1:25 pm to Eurocat
quote:And wars, and National Debt, and labor leaving the workforce, and outsourcing, and domestic terrorism, and poverty
Obama outperforms Reagan on jobs growth and investing
Posted on 9/18/14 at 1:39 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
However, when the largest segment of your population decreases in participation from 85% down to 40% due to natural causes, your overall participation rate goes down.
Especially when the participation rates of all younger cohorts are dropping. Oh and ETA:
quote:
The oldest Baby Boomers are 68 right now. They started turning 50 in 1996, so that would be about right.
Check the young cohorts even starting in 92:
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 9/18/14 at 5:54 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Check the young cohorts even starting in 92:
It's amazing that he is still arguing this point given the data. The White House report even acknowledged that it is not entirely due to aging, and they have motivation to overstate the impact of aging.
Page 8 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News